This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

Materials engineers at Monash University in Australia have devised a method of producing graphene supercapacitors that have the same energy density as the lead-acid battery under your car’s hood. Not only are these supercapacitors about 10 times more energy-dense than commercial devices, but the method of producing the graphene inside the supercapacitors seems to be novel as well. The engineers say they used a process that is similar to traditional paper making — and that it could easily and cost-effectively scaled up for commercial production of graphene, and graphene-based supercaps.

Supercapacitors are essentially small batteries that can recharge and discharge almost instantly. While this results in a very high power density (lots of watts), their energy density is generally very low (watt-hours). For a conventional supercapacitor, we’re talking about a power density that’s 10-20 times higher than a conventional lithium-ion or lead-acid battery — but on the flip side, the energy density is 10-20 times worse. In short, supercapacitors are fantastic for when you need a short burst of energy — such as a quick burst of acceleration from a car’s kinetic energy recovery system (KERS) — but useless for powering everyday consumer electronics, like your smartphone.

Graphene, however, could change all that. The amount of energy stored by an electrochemical capacitor is closely tied to the amount of charge-carrying electrolyte that contacts the electrodes. The higher the surface area of the electrodes, the more charge-carrying ions that can be adsorbed (attached) to the electrodes, thus storing more energy. You can probably see where this is going. Because graphene is the thinnest known substance, it is capable of providing an astonishingly large surface area; somewhere on the order of thousands of square meters (that’s multiple tennis courts) per gram. The surface area is so large that graphene could be used to create supercapacitors that bridge the massive energy density gap between supercaps and batteries, while still retaining huge power density.

That’s the theory, anyway. The problem, of course, as with all things graphene, is that it’s still very hard to mass-produce commercial-grade graphene. The Monash engineers claim to have solved this problem, though, using a solution-based process that’s “similar to that used in traditional paper making.” Basically, they start with graphite (graphene) oxide, which is reduced to low-grade graphene flakes using a solution of hydrazine and ammonia. Then, the electrolyte and a solvent are added to the mix. As the mixture dries, the volatile solvent evaporates, causing capillary action to suck the graphene flakes together, with the electrolyte wedged between each of the flakes. Eventually the engineers are left with something that resembles a black sheet of paper — millions of layers of graphene, with oodles of charge-carrying electrolyte locked in.

When fashioned into an electrochemical capacitor, this paper-like material has a volumetric energy density of almost 60 watt-hours per liter (Wh/l), which is just about comparable to a lead-acid battery. It retains about 90% of its capacitance after 50,000 charge/discharge cycles, and it even holds 90% of its charge after 300 hours.

Dan Li, the professor who led the work, says, “We have created a macroscopic graphene material that is a step beyond what has been achieved previously. It is almost at the stage of moving from the lab to commercial development.” There is no word on when these graphene capacitors will come to market, but the solution-based chemical reduction of graphite oxide is one of the most likely routes for commercialization of graphene.

Tagged In

Just waiting for the military to pounce on this and start using it to build portable railguns. It’s gunna happen…

mrseanpaul81

Military usually provide the funding/incentive for high cost new tech

mazty

Why? What’s the point of a portable railgun? What exists that a much, much cheaper and simpler bullet won’t destroy?

Jamie MacDonald

The military rarely uses “reasonable force,” what with all those GPS-guided heavy anti-armour and anti-air missiles have been really useful fighting insurgents with AKs and lunchbox bombs.

Like when friendly American fire brought down an RAF Chinook or two during the Iraq war. Facing an enemy with no air force in the later years, mind, yet apparently anti-air weaponry was still used for…well, shooting something I suppose.

mazty

Yeah that is reasonable force – hellfire missiles are cheap and will destroy a house/vehicle while guaranteeing no survivors. It’s not like they’ve been using Daisy Cutters on villages, or bunker busters on pickups.
What on earth does friendly fire have to do with any of this? Don’t confuse incompetence with excessive force because that’s slightly retarded.

Jamie MacDonald

So’s shooting down a Chinook. It was an example of them being equipped for anti-air against an entirely ground-based enemy.

Also a railgun has anti-armour potential that an assault rifle doesn’t, in theory.

mazty

Again you are confusing incompetence with excessive force, as I’m sure you confuse your arse with your elbow regularly.
We don’t need AP rounds that are better than the 7.62 round/5.56A1

Jamie MacDonald

I’m pretty sure science doesn’t work on the basis of “what we have now is exactly perfect guys, no need to improve or innovate new things!”

In theory a railgun equipped with the correct kind of round cloud punch through something a 7.62 currently can’t. I’m sure the military don’t want to, y’know, be able to snipe a leader or similar figure through a supposedly bulletproof shield with a better-penetrating round, though.

Plus there’s the simple technological fear factor of having the kit in the first place.

mazty

That’s not science…science is based on discoveries. If you’re talking about companies creating new tech, well yeah, if something is “perfect” why reinvent the wheel?
Yes a rail gun is powerful, but when a 5.56 NATO is all the power that is needed, why do you need more power? There’s no need to give every guy a railgun, just as there is no need to give every guy a 50. Cal.

And guess what, they won’t snipe a leader through bulletproof glass, they’ll just drop a bomb on him. I’m guessing from that inane comment your military knowledge stems exclusively from Call of Duty.

If years down the line a Rapid Fire Railgun can be made cheaper than a current assault rifle, then they’ll probably take one. Yet again, probably not. I can see an anti-material deployed like a SAW, perhaps, and there’s already talk of coilgun mortars that would have less muzzle flare and smoke to give away their position.

mazty

Your argument is was based on ignorance and misunderstanding – I’m just being blunt.
A RFR will never be made because it offers no useful advantages over a regular assault rifle. It’ll be heavier, more awkward to reload, and it’s power will be completely excessive. Again, if what you said was true, then all troops would have grenade launchers and 50. Cal rifles.

Amour is something that’s not really used nowadays by “the enemy”. Tanks etc aren’t used on mass, and even body armour is rarely used by “the enemy”. Armour penetration is something that isn’t massively needed until some sort of x-ray vision is created.

Jamie MacDonald

True, true. I imagine we’ll see one or two prototypes in the future, though. It’ll only be feasible if there’s some better way of generating portable power, though.

An0nym0usC0ward

A rapid fire railgun would probably use a different type of power source than supercapacitors. A rapid fire railgun needs constant high power electricity, supercapacitors are good at delivering all of their stored energy in a very fast burst. Good for a railgun that fires one shot at a time, then pauses, not so good for a rapid fire railgun which needs to fire shots at a high rate, IMO.

CoffeeGrunt

Fair point, it depends on the application, really. A naval vessel would probably rely on lower rate of fire in exchange for greater range and a more powerful impact.

An0nym0usC0ward

Not necessarily. Sometimes the political context doesn’t allow dropping a bomb. OTOH, a silent bullet coming out of nowhere is a completely different story.

Plus, this opens up a new possibility. It was proven repeatedly that ice bullets can’t work, with regular gunpowder-powered weapons. A railgun accelerating an ice bullet to supersonic speed inside a vacuumed tube before releasing it into the atmosphere might work – the bullet might not have time to melt or evaporate before hitting the target. No bullet, no crime proof.

An0nym0usC0ward

A rail gun has a good chance to be a lot less noisy than regular guns too. No muzzle flare and no smoke on firing. Also things to consider when you’re a sniper, IMO.

CoffeeGrunt

Have you not seen a railgun firing? There’s significant muzzle flare due to the ionisation of the air between the rails when subjected to the massive electrical flow necessary to operate it. There’s no explosion to project the projectile, sure, but it’s replaced with a burst of plasma and the heat from the friction of the round accelerating through the air.

An0nym0usC0ward

A railgun using a vacuumed tube with the projectile held away from the wires/rails via magnetic fields could, at least in theory, avoid the plasma burst. We don’t yet have as much experience with railguns as we have with regular firearms, I expect significant improvements over the next decades.

But you’re right, what we have now isn’t anywhere near what’s needed to make railguns the standard issue personal weapon for servicemen.

CoffeeGrunt

The problem would be maintaining a vacuum while still having a hole in the end for it to exit. As far as I’m aware, there’s no possible technique to do so that wouldn’t mess with the operation of the gun itself.

The biggest problem facing man-portable rail weaponry would be power supply. We’d see it on AFVs first, and even then it’s debatably overkill. After all, it would need to reach an incredible level of reliability before it would even be considered for a replacement to conventional weaponry. The military likes to go with the tried-and-true, after all.

An0nym0usC0ward

I was thinking about sort of throwing out the baby with the water solution – a vacuumed cartridge containing the bullet,to be inserted into the gun altogether, where the bullet would crack the cartridge open on exit. This would most likely also eliminate the flare on exit, and significantly reduce the sonic bang too – the bang would be produced only when the bullet hits the air, and, if the bullet is faster than sound, would reach the target only after the bullet has already hit. The cartridge could be some sheath made of ultralight materials (like a carbon fiber tube or something).

But whether that’s a feasible idea or not is up for researchers to find out.

CoffeeGrunt

Replaceable barrel for each shot? That wouldn’t be feasible at all, I’m afraid. Especially as the end would need to be fragile enough to allow the round to break through without impacting its velocity or flight path in any way, making it awkward for a trooper to carry. Especially if they had to carry enough rounds for a protracted firefight, which would become very heavy. If the cartridge is made of non-metallic materials, then it cannot function in a rail weapon as it needs metallic rails to work, negating the function of the vacuum tube.

Not to mention the inrush of air as the vacuum is breached potentially knocking the round off-course.I don’t understand your point about limiting the sound of the round firing. Current conventional weapons fire rounds that impact before the sound reaches the target, you don’t need a vacuum tube to achieve that.

jimmy2

Excessive force is a subset of incompetence.

mazty

That probably holds true in most cases, but there can be a good reason behind excessive force – when it is used to instil fear into the enemy. Psychological warfare can be incredibly effective in many different situations.

jimmy2

It isn’t competence that gets you into a situation where force beyond what is appropriate is necessary. Excessive means more destruction and ill-will than necessary is created. That is only a really good idea in the context of a lot of ideas that are worse. “Incredibly effective” just means you don’t care about the extra (unnecessary) consequences. More slop. Sloppy work. No cigar.

mazty

You completely ignored what I said. Excessive force has its place in psychological warfare.

jimmy2

No. I disagreed with what you said and reasserted my original point as part of the thread. Excess is excess. It is not a sign of competence. Excessive force also has a place in the adjudication of war crimes which pretty much overlaps with what you claim is its “place” in psychological warfare. If I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were responding to what I said, then you were saying that this “place” that excessive force has in psychological warfare means that it is a sign of competence. That some idiot can effectively and deliberately scare people by going nuts doesn’t attest to his competence. Not a convincing argument Mazty. On the other hand, would we call an evil genius competent? Was Hitler competent? He was certainly a role model for the evil genius. He used excessive force. Is he also a role model for competence? It seems to me this is a question that is not so much about objective reality as it is about your values.
Ariel Sharon is probably a better example than Hitler, but I’m not claiming him as a role model either. He frequently exceeded his orders or his mandate to do what *he* believed needed to be done. Jury’s out on whether those were his best moments or his worst.

mazty

That probably holds true in most cases, but there can be a good reason behind excessive force – when it is used to instil fear into the enemy. Psychological warfare can be incredibly effective in many different situations.

An0nym0usC0ward

At least partially true. But the issue here is that incompetence is not a subset of excessive force.

When you’re supplied with specific ammo for very specific missions, and incompetently use it when it’s not needed, that’s incompetence without being excessive force.

Armor-piercing and bunker-blasting missiles have very specific and legitimate uses. When they’re used on the wrong target it’s only incompetence, not excessive force.

some_guy_said

I would counter with this – How much does a kilowatt/hour (3600Kj) of energy cost – base cost… (Hint, it’s around 5-10c an hour)

And how much does a single 5.56 Nato round cost – in bulk. (Hint, it’s around 25c – Actual Nato Military rounds are more expensive to produce than the stuff you buy at the show for 18-30c)

A personal energy intensive weapon would arguably have lower operational costs than traditional guns, and offer far more flexibility. Imagine one gun that can be tuned from ultra long range sniper shots to block to block city fighting at the touch of a button.

why the hell do we need more stronger and cheaper (per shot) guns. it would have been better if they could make something useful whit it like a backup station so solar power could be used at night. the rail gun tech could be used for space programs. we can only hope that we never use this high tech weapons just as we hope that we will never use nukes again.

mazty

Railguns will be in service ~2020 as part of naval fleets; they’re a cheaper, superior alternative to cruise missiles.

Thomas Smith

There are ships with them already in service. Have been for several years now.

Jamie MacDonald

It’s not like nuclear turned into a new source of power or anything, is it?

massau

yes that the good part of technology but it destroyed 2 cities and there is enough to kill almost everyone and be blasted back to the stone age

some_guy_said

As opposed to a full scale invasion that would have killed millions of people rather than a few hundred thousand?

Jamie MacDonald

There always was enough Uranium to kill everyone in the world. The only difference is that it’s more ready to do so now.

massau

that’s true, I never thought in that way. but maybe we could better use it for the good than the bad. you could probably say this for every technology.

also modern nukes are H-bombs so there is certainly enough of it to kill every one on this planet several times.

Jamie MacDonald

I believe the US has a deal with Russia to decommission their warheads to use for nuclear fuel. Haven’t researched it to be sure, but it’s something I’ve heard.

mazty

You’ve missed out what you are going to be shooting from the railgun….It doesn’t shoot electricity therefore you will still need to factor in the expense of a projectile.
Also where did you get your 3.6kJ calculation from?

Plus, there are three very, very important things you are forgetting.
1) How will you recharge your gun? The advantage with a bullet is that it is both projectile and propellant. You are now saying that you’d want to add in another part that has to be reloaded. How are you going to find a generator out in the middle of nowhere?
2)Railguns produce massive volumes of heat if the BAE tests are anything to work by. This would make sustained fire incredibly difficult and potentially make the weapon far bulkier than existing weapons.
3) Why give each soldier a sniper rifle? That simply is a function that is not needed. All you need is a gun that is reliable and can kill a man quickly. In a world where major wars could be won with the push of a button, we no longer need coldwar super-troopers who can single handedly take down tanks and soldiers in body armour. If fighting moves to Africa in the next few decades, all we need is something that can kill an unarmoured, poorly trained combatant in an urban area, cheaply, reliably and quickly.

some_guy_said

“you still need to factor in the expense of the projectile.” It’s negligible – an aluminum slug costs a penny or two. Or whichever paramagnetic metal you wish to use.

“Where did you get the 3.6kJ calculation from?”
1 Kw/Hour equals 3600 kJ, not 3.6. Google it. Don’t argue with me on points that are easily verifiable.

1. “How would you recharge your gun” – I don’t see any reason why we wouldn’t use battery clips, similar to ammo clips…
2. Regular guns make a lot of heat to. However, I did not research this issue, so you may have a fair point.
3. “Why would you give each soldier a sniper rifle” – You wouldn’t. I’m just pointing out that the amount of power behind the bullet can be adjusted on the fly without changing bullets, or using a different gun that has to accept a different casing size. While, yes, a gun designed specifically for sniping would do better at the job, a regular railgun could quickly be adjusted to take up some of the properties associated with more specialized weapons if needed.

mazty

“Don’t argue with my on points that are easily verifiable”
Don’t make claims while giving no references whatsoever. Also would that be one discharge and therefore require recharging or sustained discharge over X shots? What you said cannot be easily googled as it leaves a lost of questions open.

1) So you are saying that soldiers should have two sets of ammo – projectile and battery….They already carry around ~20kg, we want to reduce weight (and reload time for that matter).
2)Railguns produce stupid amounts of heat, enough to superheat air when used on small BAE prototypes for the naval railgun.
3)There is no need to flip between power though, With the new 5.56 rounds, you can penetrate steel more effectively than some 7.62 rounds while giving incredible accuracy and effectiveness against soft targets.

Realistically, portable railguns are just not cost, or combat, effective.

some_guy_said

It takes 2 seconds to google “Kilowatt Hours to Joules”, you can easily find the result. IT DISPLAYS IT IN BIG BOLD TYPE ON THE TOP OF THE PAGE.

If I link to EVERYTHING, then my comment will get caught in the spam filter. I try to back up points that take more research with links.

Some numbers for you – If you had a clip the size of a typical ammo clip – It would be about 10 Watt hours – 36Kilo Joules. No, I won’t run through all the calculations, because it will take you two seconds to find it on the page, and make an estimate…

This gives you 20 shots at 1.8Kj, the same as a 20 shot ammo clip. Graphene supercapacitors are considerably lighter than a full ammo clip.

You are correct that they would need separate projectiles. and overall excursion weight would probably be a little higher.

It is much easier and safer to transport a bunch of aluminum bb’s and can be stockpiled at outposts. The energy required to shoot them can be generated onsite in the field.

Guns, produce stupid amounts of heat – And you’re comparing a naval sized rail gun to a portable weapon. This is not a correct comparison.

some_guy_said

Long story short – If you are unable to understand, research, or calculate even the most basic physics of it, how can you refute it based on the physics that you couldn’t calculate or research?

And this is just running through some of the simplest comparisons available – such as amount of energy involved and cost.

mazty

You misunderstand; I’m not doubting the physics, it’s where you’ve pulled the figures from. All we’ve been told is that it has the same energy density as a car battery. How the hell you expect a car battery in essence to run a railgun is beyond me….

And the gun still fails all other points. It’s heavier and the last I checked, bullets were stockpiled as well. Well that’s great generating energy from the outpost but what about outside the outpost? All you are doing is increasing weight, increasing the downtime of a soldier thanks to more reloading all so he can use a sci-fi gun…

Considering the test gun was only about 15ft in length, that still generated ridiculous amounts of heat. Scaled, you’re looking at a gun that would probably not be able to sustain any sort of fire for long. Plus you’ve overlooked the fact that you’re messing up muscle memory by adding in another reload phase on a gun that would be significantly different in terms of size to the current M4.

some_guy_said

I’m pulling the W/H to joules figure directly from google…and every site concerned with the matter. It is easily verifiable if you doubt that fact. If you think I’m wrong, this is a fact that you can quickly prove.

If you’re so concerned with links, why didn’t you check my link for a rail gun that was smaller than the navy version. Regular people can make man scaled rail guns at home. You clearly seem to be missing the fact that small sized one off, rail guns already abound.

Energy density – You could theoretically get off approximately as many shots at the same power as a NATO Rifle, I would agree that it would be less effective after accounting for energy loses – HOWEVER – You clearly don’t understand the primary limitations of batteries – Which is not energy density – The problem with batteries is the ability to quickly discharge its energy. It makes a huge difference when you can discharge the energy in less than a second…rather than over several hours with a car battery.

The difference is that they need large banks of very low energy density capacitors. This new technology greatly alleviates that issue.

mazty

So basically you have absolutely no idea if these supercapacitors would give that actual output on a portable railgun, therefore your figures are utterly superfluous?

Your argument is becoming more and more redundant. Could a portable railgun exist? Yes. Would it be better than a standard battle rifle? Probably not. Other than not actually knowing the energy output of a portable railgun (making up a W/H figure amazingly doesn’t count) you are adding in extra weight and a further reload time…so a soldiers gun can gain a function the soldier will never use. This isn’t CoD dude – not everyone has a grenade launcher therefore why the hell give everyone a sniper rifle?

There is no man scaled railgun that beats conventional ammo whilst also being as portable and easy to use. No portable railgun comes close to penetrating 9.5mm of steel at 300m. You’re wanting railguns so badly you can’t see how ludicrous and unnecessary a portable man scaled one would be.

some_guy_said

No…I was simply saying that a supercapacitor with the energy density of this breakthrough puts a man sized railgun squarely in the realm of plausibility.

I pointed out that it makes it possible, that it would have some inherent advantages and flexibility, and that It DEFINITELY would COST LESS to run one than a traditional gun.

Do I think it will really be ready for prime time soon? Probably not. But now, it can be done. Do I think they would really have to reload twice? Of course not, because I’m not a retard…Your battery clip could easily have the ammo clip right on top…because the actual naked bullets/projectiles are very small…

You’re so confused, because you don’t already understand the properties of a rail gun, and you’re too bullheaded to actually research and relieve yourself of ignorance.

mazty

So basically your W/H figure was completely made up, giving you a completely useless joule figure.
Definitely cost less to run? Really? How much will maintenance cost? Your arrogance is making your argument become even more absurd.
Oh so now you think a portable railgun will only need as many capacitors as can fit on a clip? Do you also the lottery numbers because you seem to be able to predict the future!

Your argument is just you working on hilariously baseless presumptions. Come back when your argument actually has some merit to it.

I’m not ignorant – you are just making things up to suit your argument, and if that’s not bullheaded, then what is?

some_guy_said

“So basically your W/H figure was completely made up”

Huh? my KW/J conversion was taken from google – My W/H estimate is based on the energy density listed in this article, scaled to the approximate volume of a 20 bullet clip.

Look, let’s cut through the BS, and point out, that all we’re talking about is an upgrade to this. Retard. It can and has been done. Now we can do it better.

Yes your W/H estimate was completely made up. A car battery, which is the equivalent of one of these super caps, is not going to give you a good rail gun. It’ll give you a BB gun.
I’m the retard? Your the jackass proposing to have a gun that would be expensive, complex and frankly a complete waste of time. You, son, are the retard here.
Oh it’s been done so no need to worry then? Having circuit boards in a gun is fucking retarded. How will that stand up to the punishment of a battlefield? Oh that’s right, not very well, not to mention any and all electrical interference…You want a railgun so badly you’ve gone full retard.

Mitchell Spanheimer

I agree that some_guy’s argument is more sound, the energy stored in a capacitor is completely different than a battery when it discharges, the plates can equalize themselves in a matter of seconds or much less, which means that all (or as close as physically possible to all) of that energy goes quickly and instantly into the projectile. This means that a car battery is something that in a lot of instances cannot be compared to a supercapacitor. Plus, the aluminum projectiles used are much lighter than most bullets, and are accelerated because incredibly strong magnetic fields can attract non-magnetic materials such as aluminum, AKA “Paramagnetism”. Also, some neodymium magnets are strong enough to exhibit this effect in a noticeable way too. By the way, I am also only 17 and I apparently know more than mazty, who I am assuming is older than me.

David

They may not be effective yet, but if (sorry when) they are do you really think that they will not be adopted? The one constant today is change and rapid change at that.

mazty

Change isn’t a constant by definition, but I get what you’re saying. The reason railguns probably won’t be adopted is simply they aren’t currently needed. Now, if attacks on military forces by military forces was often then yes, a portable railgun would offer a great solution for AP needs. However, enemy combatants tend to not wear body armour, so a railgun currently wouldn’t offer any advantage, but a whole host of disadvantages, over conventional firearms.
The change in warfare required to necessitate railguns may also never occur thanks to nuclear weapons – military vs military died with the cold war.

David

okay what matzy is trying to say ( without all the bs) is that rail-guns are overkill for more weight. well for the next few years yes, but the advantages of a rail-gun are like so

1. increase in velocity beyond speed of sound in expanding gas allows for less wind drift, bullet fall, increase in range( he can’t hit me but I can hit him) and increased anti-Armour effectiveness

2. increased rate of fire

3. As said change in power to suite range and target protection (and yes this is a major tactical benefit as you said lots of power isn’t necessarily a good thing)

4.Possibility for decreased magazine size

and matzy you clearly don’t have a clear understanding of firearms terminology because a bullet is the metal projectile fired from a firearm ( although it doesn’t have to be metal) not the powder as well. The case, powder and bullet is called the “round” and while military versus military conflicts have gone the possibility for one is not and the whole point of a defense force is to DEFEND the country from all threats and that includes foreign armies (why else have destroyers and aircraft carriers when aircraft can run off ground bases) and the whole electronics thing has happened ( hk G11 , Punisher counter defilade system) not too mention all the planned ones behind the scenes and those are complex computer systems this is literally a very high powered single series circuit with a moving conductor, simplistic as can be.( I know this for fact by the way and some guys facts are also correct check your math, and as an Engineering student I do actually understand whats basic and whats not.

Overall I tend to agree with your basic assessment about not needing them yet, the first and probably nearest term use in man portable systems will be as sniper rifles due to the major increase in projectile accuracy at extreme range. As for when they will be common place that depends on how cheap they get to make ( maintenance isn’t an issue for small sized weapons its more the actual cost of the magazine/capacitor) and volume because while it may have a energy density in kilograms that is high a volumetric based one may show it to be impractical. Although another avenue for reasonable low caliber RG s could be in vehicle mounted systems such as helicopters and fixed wing aircraft but that’s a guess.

mazty

No they are not just overkill for weight, but also totally impractical in many ways. Nice to see your trimming down a complex topic to “bs”.

1. Velocity is not always a good thing as it can decrease lethality, something seen with the HK G11 and AP rounds used in anti-personnel situations.

2. Since when? With railguns you generate far more heat, so unless you can manage the heat generation, there will have to be a cap on the fire rate. Plus, if the thompson taught us anything, it’s that RoF isn’t the best thing in the world. You simply need to suppress the enemy, not blot out the sun with bullets. Again, this isn’t CoD.

3. No one has yet shown why a change in power would be necessary. How many 50. Cals are there in service? I rest my case.

4. Possibly, but possibly not as you have to consider the battery. Smaller mag but large battery pack could make it equal or larger than existing mags.

Being pedantic over the bullet vs the round? What are you trying to achieve by being so anal? A defense force can do just fine without personal railguns. Why? Nukes. And aircraft carriers exist so you have a mobile airforce. Good to see you have a child’s understanding of aircraft – they run on fuel, not hopes, dreams and patriotism.

The issue is can you make a railgun that is just as compact (I appreciate the irony in using that word) as an existing 50. cal? There’s no point giving a sniper a better rifle if it’s too large and has uncontrollable muzzle flare.

Railguns on aircraft…that’s a good idea tbh. The lack of recoil could result in supersonic aircraft with lethal precision…

An0nym0usC0ward

Building the rails out of superconductors would reduce the heat emission by orders of magnitude. Research on room temperature superconductors is quite intensive. Graphene and carbon nanotubes are promissing, in this regard.

I’d like to see very small, hard, and heat-shielded projectiles leave the portable railgun at speeds of 10-20 000 m/s such that they impact with the kinetic energy of a small meteorite.

These projectiles would have the added advantage of creating an ionization trail for directed energy weapons to discharge through.

Not only could the mass of the projectiles be changed (by using multiple, on the same fire), but the energy input may be altered to suit the target. This would allow a programmable kinetic weapon. In the field, semi-autonomous-fire weapons may come in handy. If the battle AI says point in this direction, just follow the dot on the scope and let it do the rest, even if the target is invisible. Perhaps multiple guns are being aimed at the same point for different reasons.

The payload of a portable rail gun need not be only a kinetic energy weapon. Since it can switch ammo so easily, it could also launch tags, lights, and toxins (imagine being hit in neck with something the size of a grain of sand containing deadly venom!).

Oh what fun we humans have killing each other senselessly!

Now where is my phased plasma rifle in the 40 W range?

How to do this?

I can think of a few ways.

liv liv

This is trully a nice breakthru.People see the enegy density and compare it to lead-acid and reject it, but they forget that lead acid is not so popular is because of their weight not only low energy density.If this is below 100-200 grams per liter it’s a very nice breakthru.You can stack a lot of these and outperform li-ion because of it’s lower weight and the fact it charges 10-20 times faster its incredible

Thomas Smith

I was on the thought of using them to create a portable high powered laser. The power supply for them appears to be the soft spot right now.
No ammo to carry and nothing left to waste. Perfect for military personal and could be charged with either solar or hydrogen batteries.
Powerful handheld lasers are already sold and much better ones are available. I seen one at a metal shop that cut up to 2 inch thick steel. Quite quickly at that.

Mitchell Spanheimer

You guys are wasting your time arguing so much, surely there is something better for you to do with your time…

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

ExtremeTech Newsletter

Subscribe Today to get the latest ExtremeTech news delivered right to your inbox.